1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant filed a request against the Plaintiff for payment order seeking payment of goods supplied by the Defendant to the Plaintiff Company C (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) from October 8, 2012 to April 8, 2013, as the Suwon District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”).

On June 7, 2013, the above court ordered the Defendant to pay “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 37,101,268 to the Defendant and its delay damages.” The above payment order was finalized on June 28, 2013.

B. The Defendant, with the title of execution, received the seizure and collection order as to the Plaintiff’s claim to return the lease deposit against the Plaintiff D, by Sungwon District Court Branch Branching 2013TTT15776, by designating the said final payment order as the title of execution.

After that, D deposited the above security deposit, the distribution procedure was carried out in Sung-nam branch B of Suwon District Court, and on November 28, 2014, a distribution schedule was prepared to distribute KRW 40,577,397 to the Defendant, who is the collection right holder, to the Defendant.

C. On December 5, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the Defendant’s amount of distribution, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit on December 5, 2014, which was within seven days from the date of the said distribution.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 8 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant, not the Defendant, received the payment order against the Plaintiff regarding the goods payment obligation against the non-party company for which the Plaintiff had been the representative director.

Ultimately, the defendant does not have any claim against the plaintiff, and it is unreasonable that the defendant receives dividends from the above payment order in the distribution procedure.

B. However, the Plaintiff filed the instant claim on the premise that the non-party company’s obligation to pay for the goods is not the Defendant, but the non-party company’s obligation to pay for the goods is against the third party company, and even if not, the Plaintiff is not liable to the Defendant.

However, B1 to 6, 11.